A. When a tenant neglects or refuses to pay rent when due and in arrears for five days, or when a tenant violates any provision of the lease, the landlord or person to whom the rent is due, or the agent of the landlord or person to whom the rent is due, may reenter and take possession or, without formal demand or reentry, commence an action for recovery of possession of the premises.
B. The action shall be commenced, conducted and governed as provided for actions for forcible entry or detainer and shall be tried not less than five nor more than thirty days after its commencement. In addition to determining the right to actual possession, the court may assess damages, attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 12-1178.
C. If judgment is given for the plaintiff, the defendant, in order to perfect an appeal, shall file a bond with the court in an amount fixed and approved by the court and payable to the clerk of the superior court, conditioned that the appellant will prosecute the appeal to effect and will pay the rental value of the premises pending the appeal and all damages, attorney fees, costs and rent adjudged against the appellant.
D. If the tenant refuses or fails to pay rent owing and due, the landlord shall have a lien on and may seize as much personal property of the tenant located on the premises and not exempted by law as is necessary to secure payment of the rent. If the rent is not paid and satisfied within sixty days after seizure as provided for in this section, the landlord may sell the seized personal property in the manner provided by section 33-1023.
E. When premises are sublet or the lease is assigned, the landlord shall have a like lien against the sublessee or assignee as the landlord has against the tenant and may enforce it in the same manner.
F. Notwithstanding any other law, an agency of this state and an individual court may not adopt or enforce a rule or policy that requires a mandatory or technical form for providing notice or for pleadings in an action for forcible entry or forcible or special detainer. The form of any notice or pleading that meets statutory requirements for content and formatting of a notice or pleading is sufficient to provide notice and to pursue an action for forcible entry or forcible or special detainer.
Notes of Decisions
Found. Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 788 P.2d 1189 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 30× “Only then is it possible to determine the legislative objective behind the century-old statute that is now A.R.S. § 33-361. DISCUSSION A. The Historical Perspective The landlord-tenant relationship had its genesis in feudal England.”
Grady v. Barth, 312 P.3d 117 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 17× “§ 12-1182(B) must be read in conjunction with A.R.S. § 33-361, 1 a statute that first, contrary to the common law, 2 allows a landlord to file an action to evict a tenant who fails to pay rent when due or violates a lease provision, and second, authorizes the landlord to…”
Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 214 P.3d 415 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× ““While we will uphold a forfeiture when the breach is significant, we do not believe we should so literally construe A.R.S. § 33-361 as to enable a landlord to obtain an undue advantage over his tenant by permitting forfeiture for every or any breach, no matter how trivial or…”
Mining Inv. Grp., LLC v. Roberts, 177 P.3d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “After the tenant was a few days late in paying common area charges, the landlord brought a forcible detainer action pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-361(A) against the tenant seeking to terminate the lease.”
Tovar v. Superior Court of Arizona, Etc., 647 P.2d 1147 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 16× “§ 12-1182 is read in conjunction with A.R.S. § 33-361, we must conclude that upon a tenant’s appeal from an order terminating possession of commercial property 1 in a forcible entry and detainer action, the trial court must set bond and grant a stay conditioned upon the tenant’s…”
Lane v. Hognason, 470 P.2d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 14× “Assuming arguendo that this rule applies to forcible entry and detainer actions brought under A.R.S. § 33-361, the record shows that the court did in fact make findings of fact and conclusions of law but that the same were not reduced to writing.”
Rreef Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 945 P.2d 386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “section 33-361 are intended to provide a remedy to a party seeking what is, in effect, a declaratory judgment that a valid lease exists between the parties.”
Blair v. Stump, 617 P.2d 791 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 8× “Finally, appellant argues that the Arizona courts have enforced a similar appeal bond provision in A.R.S. § 33-361(C), providing for appeals by tenants from summary actions by landlords for recovery of the premises.”
Found. Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 780 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Loehmann’s sent Foundation a check for the common-area charge on April 25, 1987, twelve days after Foundation’s notice was received.”
Roosen v. Schaffer, 621 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “If only paragraph 10 was available under the lease, then the remedies found therein would be exclusive and in lieu of any other remedies. However, the parties also included paragraph 22, which clearly states that the remedies of paragraph 10 are not exclusive but are in addition…”
Thompson v. Harris, 452 P.2d 122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 4× “When Thompson failed to vacate, the landlord brought suit to evict him. The parties have referred to this action in the briefs as an action for forcible entry and detainer under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-361(A) — 8 cases
Found. Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's, Inc., 788 P.2d 1189 (Ariz. 1990).
“Only then is it possible to determine the legislative objective behind the century-old statute that is now A.R.S. § 33-361. DISCUSSION A. The Historical Perspective The landlord-tenant relationship had its genesis in feudal England.”
Mining Inv. Grp., LLC v. Roberts, 177 P.3d 1207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“After the tenant was a few days late in paying common area charges, the landlord brought a forcible detainer action pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-361(A) against the tenant seeking to terminate the lease.”
Maleki v. Desert Palms Prof'l Props., L.L.C., 214 P.3d 415 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
““While we will uphold a forfeiture when the breach is significant, we do not believe we should so literally construe A.R.S. § 33-361 as to enable a landlord to obtain an undue advantage over his tenant by permitting forfeiture for every or any breach, no matter how trivial or…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-361(B) — 4 cases
Rreef Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 945 P.2d 386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“section 33-361 are intended to provide a remedy to a party seeking what is, in effect, a declaratory judgment that a valid lease exists between the parties.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-361(C) — 4 cases
Blair v. Stump, 617 P.2d 791 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
“Finally, appellant argues that the Arizona courts have enforced a similar appeal bond provision in A.R.S. § 33-361(C), providing for appeals by tenants from summary actions by landlords for recovery of the premises.”
Tovar v. Superior Court of Arizona, Etc., 647 P.2d 1147 (Ariz. 1982).
“§ 12-1182 is read in conjunction with A.R.S. § 33-361, we must conclude that upon a tenant’s appeal from an order terminating possession of commercial property 1 in a forcible entry and detainer action, the trial court must set bond and grant a stay conditioned upon the tenant’s…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-361(D) — 5 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.